Diablo 3 - 3.5M Sold in 24 hours

Originally Posted by xSamhainx
Good ol Chien, always going on and on about those dastardly developpppppers, lol

Where? Any quote to back this up?

Developpers are offered to bill undued work. Why should they turn down the opportunity?

You have to wish it to see what you claim to see.

I actually have grown to love the always online-DRM thing for DIII. It was a pain in the ass the first couple days when literally millions of people were flocking to flood BLizzard with cyber cash, but then it settled down and has since been smooth as silk. I love all the doomsayers, thanking me (by the way, youre welcome!) for helping to usher in a whole new era of DRM Nazis From Hell. Just the drama alone is worth it, I'm starting to like all the negative attention that us bad-boys and girls are getting for simply buying a game that we wanted to play. Are you really that fumed up at me Couch Potato? Will you ever forgive the dastardly developpppppers, chienaboyer?

What do you RPG Puritans want to do with a pretty action-RPG anyway, arent you supposed to be playing some shitty Spiderweb game or Fallout for the hundredth time? Why are you even worried about new games at all?

It has nothing to do with RPG. It has to do with being charged for undued work. Once again, only through your distortions, you read this at being against dastardly developpers.

And do not read it either as being against the buyers. On the contrary. I welcomed this success as it validates.

To usher in a new era of DRM Nazis from Hell? What is that? I have nothing against DRM. Simply being charged for undued work. I buy games, not protection scheme.

Originally Posted by ChienAboyeur
First, it changes nothing. 1cent is still one cent too much. That is transfer of wealth from players who are not interested in these features to players who want these features.

Second, every buyer buys a game. Appreciation of gameplay related features is personal. What is not is the appreciation of non related gameplay features. No weaseling out here.
And third, does it mean that games with an online requirement will cost less in the future? Let me guess: it will be said more content for the same price.

Coding is what it is. The minute buyers offered the opportunity to developpers to get their quality testing performed by buyers, it was written that patching would be that way.

Skyrim is just one example among many others. By forcing patching, any player is forced to play a version of the game (even when the player prefers a previous version)
And with Steam, there is no rolling back.

1,2) The majority of buyers do want these features, people choose steam over GOG for example, even if there are some people who don't care for these features, most of them won't mind having them there. There is only very few like you who feels hurt by them being there and feel the extra cost of development is an unacceptable cost.

3) Increased sales will benefit the entire industry, either we'll see lower prices because they don't need to compensate for piracy, or we'll see more content for the same price, because they earn more money on each game. But by far best of all, this will be pure gold for PC gaming!!! Gone will be the days of companies moving to consoles and focusing only on consoles, I am sure we'll also see a lot more PC only titles, and much fewer PC game developers going bankrupt.

Patches) Again they'll need to learn and also have much more pressure to make a higher quality delivery of patches, no more "you don't have to play with that patch" excuses. It'll be more like MMO's make the patch wrong and you're punished severely by angry players!

Originally Posted by GothicGothicness
Gone will be the days of companies moving to consoles and focusing only on consoles, I am sure we'll also see a lot more PC only titles, and much fewer PC game developers going bankrupt.

PC gaming has been staging a comeback for the last 5 years or so. Since 2010 more money has been generated through PC game sales than console game sales and in 2011 PC games raked in a record 18.6 billion dollars (expected to grow to 25 billion in 2015.) Also, considering the average budget of developing a multiplatform console game is over 20 million dollars (compared to 5 million in 2005 and about 1 million in 2000,) and that some developers have already come out complaining that developing games for the next xbox will see development costs double AGAIN, and I think you'll be seeing more developers concentrating on the PC market in the future even with the piracy threat.

Well, the cynic in me says : "See, I'm more developed thn you, because I can let go.
And I save money by not buying."

Originally Posted by Fantasm
Look, early on this development team made the unilateral decision that Diablo was, at it's core, a multiplayer game.

This has two main implications :

First (1), it means that the "multiplayer crowd" who wants multiplayer games and nothing but that finally becomes catered big scale. I've seen forum entries of games, which were designated to be singleplayer games, with demands like "I want this as an MP game" or "why can't it be an MP game ?" or "I just wish this fine game was an MP game. It would be so much better with it."Similar entries like that.

The sub-implication to this is :

Multiplayer is good.
Singleplayer is bad.
And I hope that you are not that naive that you don't think that companies + gamers will not come to this conclφusion, no matter what. Just look at the *practical* outcome.

Second (2), the socond implication of this is the sheer market power of Bliizard and its success. How many Action-RPGs have flooded the RPG market since then ? How many non-online, non-MP non-action singleplayer RPGs have been released since then ? And I' not talking Indie products.

The sheer practical result will be that companies will more and more try to copy Blizzard.

And after THIS more-than-overwhelming success EVEN MORE.

Which will lead to a even more greater flood of MP-based Action-RPGs.

Me, I' considering being at the first wave, at the very first front line of those who already begin to become tired of that. That's because I'm more sensitive than others which means that I "sense" future developments better than others do which does NOT mean that I'm alwys right, by the way. I'm nothing but human, too.)

And if this flood of D-Clones becomes *too great*, people might become tired, too.

And then the pendulum might swing back.

The other possibility that could happen (and I think it is actually more than likely, imho), is that this genre will even cement itself further - similar to the shooter games genre. There's lots and lots and lots of WWII shooters right now, and this genre has just become expanded by Crysis, Mass Effect (combined with RPG elements) etc. .

The sheer influence of Bioware is so great, for example, that the "dialog wheel" was implemented in the "Fairy" RPG some of you might even never have heard of.

The radiation of both Bioware and Blizzard is so overwhelming that I predict both more than influencing the whole RPG genre for decades. At least for the next decade. Another 10 years of ActiBlizzard dominating the sales.

D3 could be, and this is a very, very small chance, however, already have reached its cenith. The top point of its genre.
But from there it would at least take another 10 years to "go down", if ever, that is.

And yes, I see similarities in genre development in both shooter games & in RPG games, with both haveng recently been combined thanks to Bioware.

--  Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius  and a lot of courage  to move in the opposite direction. (E.F.Schumacher, Economist, Source)

Originally Posted by drae
PC gaming has been staging a comeback for the last 5 years or so. Since 2010 more money has been generated through PC game sales than console game sales and in 2011 PC games raked in a record 18.6 billion dollars (expected to grow to 25 billion in 2015.) Also, considering the average budget of developing a multiplatform console game is over 20 million dollars (compared to 5 million in 2005 and about 1 million in 2000,) and that some developers have already come out complaining that developing games for the next xbox will see development costs double AGAIN, and I think you'll be seeing more developers concentrating on the PC market in the future even with the piracy threat.

Unfortunately those numbers comes from WOW other MMO, and multiplayer games. I guess I should have added it is great news for the PC single player lovers. Piracy haven't been a big factor with these MMO's / multiplayer games so sales have stayed strong with them, so has investments in these kind of games for the PC.

Originally Posted by GothicGothicness
I guess I should have added it is great news for the PC single player lovers.

Personally, I don't see Blizzard's newest game as an PC SP game anymore.

--  Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius  and a lot of courage  to move in the opposite direction. (E.F.Schumacher, Economist, Source)

Originally Posted by Sir_Brennus
I just want my game back - that's all.

Video games will be considered SERVICES in the future.

This has already begun.

Steam, OnLive, "always on", they all reduce games into mere "Services".

This is as if I would call a board game a "service" from the board games makers made to you.

--  Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius  and a lot of courage  to move in the opposite direction. (E.F.Schumacher, Economist, Source)

Originally Posted by Alrik Fassbauer
Personally, I don't see Blizzard's newest game as an PC SP game anymore.

I agree. I doubt we will ever see another true SP game from Blizzard after all WOW and there fans showed them there future. The next two expansions to finish SC2 will be there last games not on a server and not only focused on mp.

Originally Posted by xSamhainx
What do you RPG Puritans want to do with a pretty action-RPG anyway, arent you supposed to be playing some shitty Spiderweb game or Fallout for the hundredth time? Why are you even worried about new games at all?

You hit the problem perfectly on the nail :

There WON'T be any non-action RPGs anymore. Period.

Just look at how many non-action non-MP non-Indie SP RPGs are released nowadays ?

NONE. And this trend will continue and increase.

Because people have voted with their Dollars and other currencies :

"We want Action-RPGs ! Nothing but !"

The SP RPG is at its end.

And the MP faction rejoices. "Finally, the end ! We have beaten them !"

Originally Posted by Couchpotato
I agree. I doubt we will ever see another true SP game from Blizzard after all WOW and there fans showed them there future. The next two expansions to finish SC2 will be there last games not on a server and not only focused on mp.

This is the future I see as well.

And furthermore, this is the future I see very highly likely to happen within the WHOLE PC gaming.

--  Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius  and a lot of courage  to move in the opposite direction. (E.F.Schumacher, Economist, Source)

I think the online-only aspect of D3 is one of the most positive features. Not because it's online-only, but because it provides a much more secure environment where the time investment makes a lot more sense, rather than facing hacks/cheats and so on.

Given the nature of the RMAH feature, I think it's the only way that makes sense.

Yeah, they could have created a separate offline client - running on completely different code (no server infrastructure required for AI/chat/battle.net and so on) - but that's a huge amount of work to please people who really don't want to enjoy Diablo as a social experience.

You can agree or disagree that Diablo should be a social experience, but I most certainly think it's the only way to play the game. Blizzard agrees.

You can play it solo, true, but you'd still miss out a lot if you didn't use the AH or the social features.

If you want to play this kind of game by yourself, or you don't care about potential hackers and cheaters - there are several alternatives.

Blizzard have been clear about this online integration from the beginning, and it's simply a decision that's left to the individual. Is Diablo 3 for you? Then support it - if not, then don't.

Now, you can talk about how you disagree it makes a better game, but you're not entitled to anything except that which you choose to pay for. I think it's a very curious attitude - to expect Blizzard to provide something because you want them to. It's their design and their game - and they've been upfront from the start.

That said, I think they've made several unfortunate design decisions that have nothing to do with online-only integration, but that's for another discussion.

DArtagnan

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
I think the online-only aspect of D3 is one of the most positive features. Not because it's online-only, but because it provides a much more secure environment where the time investment makes a lot more sense, rather than facing hacks/cheats and so on.

I disagree.

If I want to play single-player, then I'd be offline.
And being offline means : I wouldn't have to fear hacks and cheats.
And viruses. And Trojans.

It's as smple as that.

With internet crime increasing (as it does right now), and yes, even with Cyber-Wars increasing (have you read about the newest hacks againt El Kaida ?),
with all of that, being *offline* is the ONLY 100 % fool-proof safety method.

--  Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius  and a lot of courage  to move in the opposite direction. (E.F.Schumacher, Economist, Source)

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Unfortunately, you're ignoring what I said about Blizzard wanting it to be a social experience - and intending it to be the most secure social experience they could.

Social experience doesn't mean being forced to play with other people, but having people be a part of the experience - whether you interact with them or not.

It's fine that you disagree with Blizzard about what their game should be, but you're not entitled to anything from them.

It's as simple as that.

Maybe, but again : We won't see NOTHING BUT this "social experience" within future,
because Blizzard's influence is just too big.

SP gming will die out. Or reduced to an "always on" game.

--  Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius  and a lot of courage  to move in the opposite direction. (E.F.Schumacher, Economist, Source)

DArtagnan

Originally Posted by Alrik Fassbauer
You hit the problem perfectly on the nail :

There WON'T be any non-action RPGs anymore. Period.

Just look at how many non-action non-MP non-Indie SP RPGs are released nowadays ?

NONE. And this trend will continue and increase.

Because people have voted with their Dollars and other currencies :

"We want Action-RPGs ! Nothing but !"

The SP RPG is at its end.

And the MP faction rejoices. "Finally, the end ! We have beaten them !"

This is the future I see as well.

And furthermore, this is the future I see very highly likely to happen within the WHOLE PC gaming.

That's very pessimistic. All you have to do is create the business case for a professional to make a game you'd like. If you're in a minority then you have to spend more to make your opinion count the same as several other people who only want to spend less - that's one of the reasons collectors editions exist.

There are other ways of catering for a minority market as well - lower the production values and costs so that you don't need to sell as many - so as a player to support that then go for titles that are close to what you want even if they look like budget productions or are buggy.

--  Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius  and a lot of courage  to move in the opposite direction. (E.F.Schumacher, Economist, Source)

You know that are this resistance against always online is futile. Eventually, we will all have chips implanted in our bodies that always connect us to the net, anyway… *We* will be directly connected to Blizzard's servers instead of our computers.